INFORMATION LITERACY AND

FLEXIBLE SCHEDULING FOR

ELEMENTARY MEDIA CENTERS

Susan Warner

ABSTRACT

Flexible scheduling in school libraries is supported by the AmericanAssociation for School Libraries (AASL) and the Association forEducational Communications and Technology (AECT). Support is basedon the constructivist theory of learning and posits increased learning,collaboration, and visitations by classes, small groups, and individualsto the availability of resources during the time of need, yet there is nodirect evidence to support flexible scheduling. The quantitative studysought to examine the relationship between media center scheduling onstudents’ academic achievement, teacher and media specialist collabora-tion, and class visitation in an elementary school. The researcher utilizedan experimental posttest-only control group design. The point-biserialcorrelation was utilized to identify any relationship between groupswho utilized the media center on a fixed versus a flexible schedule andcriterion-referenced test scores. No significant relationship was foundbetween scheduling patterns, student achievement, and collaboration.However, the research supported increased number of visitations byclasses on a fixed schedule.

Advances in Library Administration and Organization, Volume 29, 219–242

Copyright r 2010 by Emerald Group Publishing Limited

All rights of reproduction in any form reserved

ISSN: 0732-0671/doi:10.1108/S0732-0671(2010)0000029008

219

Academic achievement and strong media programs have been linked tohigher performing schools (United States National Commission on Librariesand Information Science, 2008). According to the NCLIS, effective mediaprograms are (a) staffed by qualified media specialists, (b) encouragecollaborative partnerships with teachers, (c) provide instructional support tostudents, (d) contain ample resources, and (e) are accessible according to theneeds of the staff and students. The purpose of the school media programis to ‘‘ensurey students are effective usersyof information’’ (p. 6). Coreelements of a media program are scheduling, collaboration, and teaching(Eisenberg, 2004; Hurley, 2002; Lonsdale, 2003).The fundamental responsibility of a school media program is teaching

information literacy skills (Eisenberg, 2004). Yet, documented evidence ismissing that relates media programs and information literacy acquisition tostudent achievement on standardized tests (Eisenberg, 2004; Lonsdale, 2003).The purpose of this study was to begin isolating these critical elementsand identify any relationship between information literacy acquisition andstudent performance on standardized testing while controlling for collabora-tion, information literacy, and curriculum integration.

The need for further research regarding the use of flexible scheduling, acritical element, was identified by Hurley (2002). Flexible scheduling,through collaboration and teaching, has been correlated to increasedinstructional planning, curriculum integration, and increases in reading andwriting scores (Beaird, 1999; Bishop, 1992; Lance, Rodney, & Hamilton-Pennell, 2005; Rodney, Lance, & Hamilton-Pennell, 2003). The goal of thisstudy was to measure the effect of scheduling patterns used in elementaryschools as they relate to academic achievement while controlling forcollaboration and the integration of information literacy into instructionand the classroom curriculum.

BACKGROUND

Flexible scheduling in school media centers is not a new concept. In 1927,a group of elementary school principals and media specialists met onthe campus of the University of Washington to discuss the purpose,organization, and responsibilities of the media program as it relates tothe community of students it serves (Fargo, 1930). Discussion amongprofessionals led to the realization that the organization of early elementarymedia programs ‘‘evolve[d]y from the techniques of public librarychildren’s room and the practices of high school’’ (p. 7).

SUSAN WARNER220

During the 1930s, young children using the public library were able toperuse books on an instructional or moral level, yet books had not beenpurchased for the simple pleasure of reading (Fargo, 1930). Fargo’sobservations of the elementary library were similar to a high school libraryand a public library where each held similar numbers of books. During thisperiod, the early elementary media programs across the United States werenot age appropriate, and young students were not prepared for supervisedindependent study when compared to high school libraries. Elementarymedia programs, according to Fargo, needed to be investigated andanalyzed to determine their capacity to meet the needs of the studentsthrough enhanced curriculum and school goals.

Three years after the initial meeting, principals and media specialistsremained divided. Fargo (1930) authored the book The Program forElementary School Library Service, in an attempt to evaluate theeffectiveness of media programs. Fargo described three program types. Thefirst two programs were very strict and limited in terms of activities, bookcollection, certified staffing, organization, and equipment storage. The thirdprogram known as ‘‘unlimited library service’’ was the beginning of a fullservice library that foreshadowed the standards outlined by the AASLand AECT (Information Power, 1998; Fargo, 1930, p. 90). In a review ofliterature on the history of public school libraries, Vande Haar (2005) statedthat Fargo was a visionary. Guidelines for media programs in schools datingfrom 1945 to 1998 have gradually moved toward Fargo’s vision of what amedia program should be.

Although the specific issues confronting the early development of theelementary library programs are not relevant today, the basic principlesunderlying them were. Fargo (1930) and the AASL and AECT (1998)envisioned the library program as child centered. The media center wasnot only a book depository but also a resource center for reading and foraccessing information. He wanted them to be set up so that the academiccurriculum could be integrated with reference and information sources;students and teachers would be able to locate, access, and utilize informa-tion on a variety of subjects; and accessibility by teachers and studentswould remain flexible and open. Educationally effective media programsallowed for individual students to visit the media center based on need(AASL & AECT; Fargo). Lonsdale (2003) stated that flexible schedulingwas a more ‘‘student centered approach’’ as it allowed the use of resources atthe time of need for learning (p. 21).

More than 77 years later, the underlying issue between media specialistsand administrators in elementary school libraries is choosing an appropriate

Information Literacy and Flexible Scheduling for Elementary Media Centers 221

schedule to better serve the student population and to develop referenceand information skills that could influence academic achievement onstandardized tests (Hurley, 2002; Lankford, 1994; Kroeker, 1989). Researchconducted by Williams, Wavell, and Coles (2001) examined other studiesto identify significant factors in media programs that related to increasedgains in academic achievement. It was found that flexible scheduling,one of several factors for increasing academic achievement, was a benefitin promoting student use (Williams et al., 2001). A survey conductedby McCracken (2001) reported that 38% of elementary schools were usinga combination schedule as visualized by Fargo, 54% were using a fixedschedule, and 8% were utilizing a flexible schedule. Abdoler-Shroyer’s(1999) survey of schools in Missouri reported that more than 87% ofelementary school media programs were operating on a fixed schedule; asurvey of Indiana schools by Lance, Rodney, and Russell (2007) reportedthat 91% were visiting the media center on a fixed schedule. Only 22% ofthe elementary public schools in the United States maintained a flexibleschedule for library use in elementary schools (Holton, 2004).

County school systems for media center programs in Georgia follow thepolicies set forth by the Georgia Department of Education (2005–2008-a,2005–2008-b). The current policy, IFBD, dictates media center scheduling inelementary through high school setting (GA DOE, 2008). According to rule160-44.01, the media center will operate using a flexible schedule; classes,small groups, and individuals will use the media center on an as-neededbasis (GA DOE). An additional requirement for instruction is that theteacher and the media specialist cooperatively plan for an integratedapproach to information literacy in the curriculum.

All grade levels, kindergarten through 12th grade, have been placedon a homogenized scheduling pattern. The underlying implication of thepresent policy states that what is acceptable for students and teachersin high schools is equally acceptable for younger students and teachers inelementary schools. However, elementary school curricular and instruc-tional needs are not identical to those of high school students. Policiesfor media center scheduling need to be developed to improve the quality ofthese organization and the constituents they serve.

THEORETICAL BASE

Student learning should have priority over any schedule or administrativeobligation; schedules are bounded by a specific date and time which may

SUSAN WARNER222

delay the need for learning (AASL & AECT, 1998). According to theconstructivist theory of learning, learning is not stagnant, but active, notlinear, but multidirectional (Vygotsky, 1978; Bandura, 1977; Bruner, 1996;Lave & Wenger, 1991; Gauvain, 2001). According to the AASL and AECT,students actively learn through the social interactions and the manipulationof resources readily available during the time of instructional needs.To improve student learning through library/media programs, the AmericanLibrary Association published Information Power: Building Partnerships forLearning (1998). The AASL and AECT stated that student learning is thecore of the library media program, and the central focus should be to movestudents from ‘‘situated learning’’ (Lave & Wenger, 1991, p. 34) towarda ‘‘community of practice’’ (Lave & Wenger, 1991, p. 98) or ‘‘learningcommunity’’ (AASL & AECT, p. 48; Lave & Wenger, 1991, p. 98). Situatedlearning is authentic knowledge and experiences which are bound by thesocial interactions between the teacher, student, and resources (Lambertet al., 2002; Lave & Wenger, 1991). The learning community consists ofstudents, teachers, administrators, and society.

Cognitive development may increase when students work collaborativelywith an adult who is more experienced and knowledgeable in helping toanalyze learning and information needs. Vygotsky (1978) believed ‘‘humanlearning presupposes a specific social nature and a process by which [humanbeings] grow into the intellectual life of those around them’’ (p. 88).Thought, language, and actions are the social tools that make us human andconnect us to society. Language, the greatest contributor to cognition,enables ideas to be reinforced or corrected through conversation. Learningbecomes a reciprocal process and is extended when the learner is workingwith a more experienced other. Thinking skills develop through the use oflanguage and shared communication.

The media center offers opportunities for staff and students to beintroduced to resources through guided and independent practice incollaboration with the media specialist. The interactions and reactions arereciprocal learning processes and reflect the teachings of Bandura (1977).Bandura broadened social learning theory to include the interaction ofobservation, modeling, attitudes, and emotional reactions in response to theenvironment that surrounds them. Learning was a change in response tointernal or external stimuli; learning was not unidirectional; learning wasa multidirectional progression. The utilization of language can adjust thelearning by providing reinforcement or correction. In order for learning tobe valuable, it must be wanted or needed for the foreseeable future ofdesired goals.

Information Literacy and Flexible Scheduling for Elementary Media Centers 223

A guiding principle of the media program is collaborating with staff andstudents to develop an understanding of information that different resourcescan provide. Learning is reflective. Bruner (1996) stated that the nature ofthe mind was not strictly ‘‘computational’’ when learning was occurring(p. 1). Learning occurred when the mind interacted with the culture, definedas the symbolic representation shared by the members of a community.The symbolic mode is ‘‘conserved, elaborated, and passed on to succeedinggenerations who, by virtue of this transmission, continue to maintain theculture’s identity and way of life’’ (p. 3). As a result, learning is situatedin the culture in which it is shared. A word can have several definitionsbased on the sociohistorical context in which the word has been used.Higher cognitive functions develop when the symbolic representation can betranslated and explained into language.

Learning to use resources requires active participation to developinformation literacy skills. Therefore, learning should be viewed as asocially active process. According to Gauvain (2001), learning is an inter-dependent process of the social, emotional, and intellectual developmentand, as a result, social ‘‘interactionsy offer [us] the opportunity todevelopy important skills and conveyy socioemotional, cognitive, andcultural messages’’ (p. 3). Social interactions increase development andcognition. Gauvain stated that the ‘‘conventions of social interaction’’ allowfor the exchange of information through questions and answers, theexplanation of ideas, and organization of information (p. 4). ‘‘Activitytheory’’ lies in the sociocultural context of cognitive development (p. 48).People develop in conjunction with the socially organized activity of humannature. Activities of human nature are opportunities to learn how to useresources under the direction of peers, parents, or teachers. How one learnsto use resources defines their sociocultural history. If one is very adeptin the utilization of tools, it means that the symbolic representation has beenskillfully defined in the cognitive processes of the brain. ‘‘Through socialinteraction and by involvement with the tools and resources of the socialand cultural community, [we] develop cognitive skills’’ (p. 23).

Student acquisition of information literacy skills begins in elementarymedia programs. The goal is to move the student from novice to expert.Lave and Wenger (1991) extended the teachings of Vygotsky (1978),Bandura (1977), Bruner (1996), and Gauvain (2001), believing that‘‘learning is an integral and inseparable aspect of social practice’’ (p. 31).Cognitive development increases through language and the transferenceof resource utilization and is extended through language when it isshared with the community. Learning is established in social interaction.

SUSAN WARNER224

‘‘Learningy as situated activity [is a]y processy call[ed] legitimateperipheral participation (Lave & Wenger, 1991, p. 29). Learning is situatedin the time and context in which it is taught. Situated learning occurs whenlistening to a conversation. It becomes an apprenticeship of skills andknowledge when it is practiced under the supervision of a more experiencedother. Legitimate peripheral participation is critical in developing theknowledge and skills to practice alone. Learning occurs in a ‘‘community ofpractice’’ (p. 42) when knowledge is shared with an apprentice. Cognitivedevelopment, according to Lave and Wenger’s (date) theory of sociallearning, is situated in legitimate peripheral participation within acommunity of practice.

Through the teachings of Vygotsky (1978), Bandura (1977), Bruner(1996), Gauvain (2001), and Lave and Wenger (1991), one truly begins tounderstand the impact of constructivist learning. According to the OxfordDictionary of Sociology (date), ‘‘the term constructivismy [is] the processby which the cognitive structures that shape our knowledge of the worldevolve through the interaction of environment and subject’’ (Marshall, 1998,p. 609). In this model, the media specialist, teacher, and student arelinked through communication and resources. Linking communication andresources at the time of need becomes a collaborative effort. Collaborationis a ‘‘symbiotic process’’ that shapes our cognitive development, andrequires the utilization of language, activity, and practice (AASL & AECT,1998, p. 51). The learner, whether adult or child, can create, sustain, or buildcognitively through collaborative interactions. As the learner becomes moreknowledgeable, he or she is able to refine that knowledge and begin to moveinto a larger society, eventually becoming a practitioner. Language, activity,and practice are the key components of social learning and cognitivedevelopment (Gauvain, 2001).

The philosophy and position of the AASL and AECT (1998) for studentlearning and scheduling is grounded in constructivist theory whichacknowledges that learning is not stagnant but active, and that learning isnot linear but multidirectional (Bandura, 1977; Bruner, 1996; Vygotsky,1978). Cognitive development, through language, reciprocity of interactionsand reactions, and culture, is enhanced when the student is actively involvedin the manipulation of resources and exchange of ideas (Bandura, 1977;Bruner, 1996; Gauvain, 2001; Vygotsky, 1978). Lave and Wenger (1991)stated that cognitive development is extended when the student moves fromthe social interactions of teacher and resources to teaching and sharing withothers in the community. Therefore, students actively learn through socialinteractions and the manipulation of resources readily available during the

Information Literacy and Flexible Scheduling for Elementary Media Centers 225

time of need (AASL & AECT, 1998). The tenets of flexible schedulingare (a) increase in the time for learning, (b) increase in the time availablefor collaboration between the media specialist, teachers, and students, (c)increase in opportunities to the cultural sharing of resources and exchangeof information, and (d) increase in visitation of class(es), small group(s), andindividual(s). Scheduling practices, whether fixed or flexible, in media centerprograms can limit the sharing of resources and the exchange of ideas.

RESEARCH QUESTIONS

A primary guiding principle for the information access and delivery is thebelief that student learning should ‘‘take precedence over class schedules,school hours, student categorizations, and other logistical concerns’’(AASL & AECT, 1998, p. 89). A major advantage of a flexible schedule,according to the AASL and AECT (1998), is collaboration between mediaspecialists and teachers. Collaboration is working with others to ‘‘plan,conduct, and evaluate learning activities that integrate information literacy’’(p. 50). Collaboration can improve academic achievement by integratinginstruction with information literacy skills (AASL & AECT). According tothe constructivist philosophy of the AASL and AECT (1998), classes usinga fixed schedule would likely have lower test scores relating to the use ofreference and information sources if students were not allowed access to themedia center at the time of need. Second, fixed schedules limited the timeavailable for collaboration between the media specialist and teacher forcurricular integration. Third, fixed schedules limited the use of the mediacenter by class assignment. Therefore questions addressed were as follows:

1. What was the relationship between scheduling patterns, fixed or flexible,on criterion-referenced standardized test scores for reference andinformation skills?

2. What effect did scheduling have on collaboration and integration?3. What was the effect of scheduling on class visitation for teachers using a

fixed or flexible schedule?

Methodology

The research design used in this study focused on a single case as it was amore accurate representation of the situation in an elementary media center.Typical elementary schools use one of two patterns for scheduling in the

SUSAN WARNER226

media center. Schedules are either fixed or flexible. To test the assumptionsespoused by the AASL and the AECT (1998), a single case design wasapplied utilizing the posttest-control-group design. Classes were randomlyassigned to one of two scheduling patterns. Classes assigned to group Autilized the media center on a fixed schedule; classes assigned to group Butilized the media center on a flexible schedule. At the end of the periodof the study, a posttest was given to both groups to determine the impact ofscheduling on academic achievement of first through fifth grade elementarystudents. Statistical analysis utilized point-biserial correlation to findrelationships between scheduling, collaboration, and visitation to achieve-ment in reference to information literacy skills and research.

Data Collection and Analysis

Data CollectionThe goal of this study was to evaluate the current policy of scheduling inmedia centers using quantifiable data by comparing mean scores of studentswho used media centers on a fixed schedule to others who were allowedflexibility in scheduling its use at varying grade levels in an elementaryschool. Data collected to support or reject the claims of the relationshipbetween scheduling patterns and achievement in elementary schools includedcooperative planning forms, media center sign in schedules, and test scores.

Cooperative planning forms allow for the exchange of communicationbetween the teacher and the media specialist. The form identifies the teacher,resources, information literacy skill, instructional standard and topic forcurriculum integration. The sign-in schedule for visitation was divided into15-minute segments. Teachers had the option of choosing four units of timebased on classroom needs. Additionally, the schedule tracked classroomvisitations for the type of use. Utilization of the media center can be for theexchange of library books, teacher-directed instruction, or media specialistinstruction. Cooperative planning forms and sign-in sheets were collectedat the onset of the study and continued in use through the testing phase. Testscores were obtained in mid-June. The scores analyzed the portion ofthe Criterion-Referenced Competency Test (CRCT) related to informationliteracy skills and reference sources.

Data AnalysisNinety-six percent of the teachers in grades one through five participatedin the study. Table 1 shows the distribution of teachers per grade level.

Information Literacy and Flexible Scheduling for Elementary Media Centers 227

Seventeen percent of the teachers taught first grade; 22% taught secondgrade; 26% taught third grade; 17% taught fourth grade; and 17% taughtfifth grade.

Table 2 illustrates the distribution of teachers and classroom curriculum.Forty-three percent of the teachers taught students using an advancedcurriculum, and 57% taught students using a regular curriculum. Studentsmay be enrolled in an advanced learning class if he/she (a) has beenidentified as gifted, (b) maintains an 85 grade point average (GPA) in coresubjects, (c) maintains a minimum of 2.5 on a 3.0 scale in all subjects,(d) maintains a satisfactory (S) or excellent (E) in conduct, and/or (e) hasbeen recommended by a teacher. Theoretically, these students shouldhave higher test scores. To maintain equality between the samples, it wasnecessary to compare similar classes within grade levels. Therefore, randomassignment to scheduling included comparable class assignments based onthe curriculum.

Table 3 displays the percentage of teachers assigned to a fixed or flexibleschedule. Fifty-two percent of the classes were assigned to a fixed schedule;48% were assigned to a flexible schedule.

The objective of the CRCT is to gauge the acquisition of skills andknowledge by students according to the GPS (GA DOE, 2005–2008-a,2005–2008-b). The CRCT is divided into five content areas each of which

Table 1. Teachers per Grade.

Grade Level Frequency Percent

1 4 17.4

2 5 21.7

3 6 26.1

4 4 17.4

5 5 17.4

Total 23 100.0

Table 2. Curriculum.

Curriculum Frequency Percent

Advanced 10 43.5

Regular 13 56.5

Total 23 100.0

SUSAN WARNER228

includes three to six domains. Domains are ‘‘a group of related curricularstandards’’ (GA DOE, 2005–2008-a, 2005–2008-b). The CRCT rates overallperformance by students on three levels: (a) does not meet, (b) meets, and(c) exceeds. In order for students to meet or exceed performance standards,they should show evidence or demonstrate a clear understanding of basicconcepts. The scores for each class were collected from the summary reportsthat are provided to schools for further analysis. Included in the summaryreport are the total number of students who participated in each contentarea test, the mean scale score, total number of items in each content areaand domain, and the class mean for the number of correct answers forstudents. For the purposes of this study, the only content area examined wasEnglish/Language Arts as the standards related to information literacy andresearch skills are embedded within the content domains of Research andResearch & Writing Process within that content area. The approximatepercentage weights for each of the domains can be found in Table 4according to grade level.

Research question 1 focused on whether there is a relationship betweenscheduling patterns in elementary schools and scores on criterion-referencedstandardized test for reference and information skills. The CRCT is takenby all students in grades one through five in elementary schools. TheGeorgia Department of Education (2005–2008-a, 2005–2008-b) hasprovided two manuals, CRCT Content Description (GA DOE, 2005–2008-a,2005–2008-b) and Grade 1–5 Study Guide(s) (GA DOE, 2005–2008-a,2005–2008-b). The first manual, CRCT Content Descriptions (GA DOE,2005–2008-a, 2005–2008-b), was written to provide teachers with information

Table 3. Schedule.

Schedule Frequency Percent

Fixed 12 52.2

Flexible 11 47.8

Total 23 100.0

Table 4. CRCT Content Weights.

Grade 1 2 3 4 5

Research 12 16

Research & Writing Process 40 40 40

Information Literacy and Flexible Scheduling for Elementary Media Centers 229

relating to content assessment. The guide acts as an explanation of what isexpected by each student according to grade level. The second manualprovides teachers and parents a resource for teaching skills within a contentarea for a specific domain. Included in this manual are activities, practicequizzes, and solutions.

According to the manuals, first grade students are beginning to use avariety of resources that include picture dictionaries, books, and the Internet(GA DOE, 2005–2008-a, 2005–2008-b), along with a glossary to locate wordmeanings. The domain for research contained six items and accounted for12% of the English/Language Arts score. Six questions are focused on theuse of resources. Second grade students have been introduced to a variety ofresources that include encyclopedias, books, the Internet, dictionaries, andthesauruses. At this grade level, students learn to use the table of contents,glossaries, indexes, and search engines to locate information and understandtheir purpose (http://www.georgiastandards.org/english.aspx). Eight ques-tions are found in this domain, and the domain weight is 16% of the totalEnglish and Language Arts score. Research skills are combined with writingprocess skills for students in the third, fourth, and fifth grades. According tothe GPS, third grade students use a variety of resources to research andshare information on a topic, which includes gathering information in amore efficient manner. Students should have practice in locating facts anddefinitions in reference books and on the Internet.

Other skills in this domain include using sensory details, selection oforganizational patterns, and transitions in writing. The domain weightaccounts for 40% of the English and Language Arts score and contains20 items for third, fourth, and fifth grade students. Students in fourth gradeshould identify the meanings of words and alternate word choices using adictionary. Additionally, the student should use research and technology tosupport their writing by acknowledging information from sources, locatinginformation in reference texts (prefaces, appendix, index, glossary, and tableof contents), using a variety of reference materials (dictionary, thesaurus,encyclopedia, database, almanac, atlas, magazine, newspaper, and keywords). The writing skills that are applicable to third grade students are alsorelevant for fourth and fifth grade students. Fifth grade students shouldutilize more than one source of information (speaker, book, newspaper,and online resource) for their research. Opinions should be supported andacknowledged through the reference to other texts, works, authors, ornonprint sources. Additionally, relevant information offered should includecitations, end notes, bibliographic references, and appendices. Studentsshould utilize dictionaries, thesauruses, encyclopedias, almanacs, atlases,

SUSAN WARNER230

magazines, and newspapers as aids to writing. The index, table of contents,guide words, and alphabetical alphabetical/numerical order should becommon elements within their strategy for locating information efficientlyand accurately.

Table 5 displays the average mean scores for first and second gradesaccording to scheduling patterns and instructional curriculum (advanced orregular).

Table 6 displays the average mean scores for third, fourth, and fifthgrades according to scheduling patterns and instructional curriculum(advanced or regular).

A point-biserial correlation was utilized to answer the first researchquestion – what is the relationship between scheduling patterns, fixed or

Table 5. Mean Research Scores between Schedule and Curriculum –First and Second Grade.

Schedule Curriculum M N Standard Deviation

Fixed Advanced 80.50 2 0.707

Regular 58.333 3 2.309

Total 67.20 5 12.256

Flexible Advanced 80.00 1

Regular 54.67 3 15.308

Total 61.00 4 17.795

Total Advanced 80.33 3 0.577

Regular 56.50 6 9.995

Table 6. Mean Research/Writing Process Scores between Schedule andCurriculum – Third, Fourth, and Fifth Grades.

Schedule Curriculum M N Standard Deviation

Fixed Advanced 76.67 3 7.095

Regular 56.00 4 11.343

Total 64.86 7 14.253

Flexible Advanced 82.50 4 4.203

Regular 48.00 3 5.568

Total 67.71 7 18.954

Total Advanced 80.00 7 5.944

Regular 52.57 7 9.641

Information Literacy and Flexible Scheduling for Elementary Media Centers 231

flexible, on criterion-referenced standardized test scores for reference andinformation skills? To determine a relationship between scheduling patternsand criterion-referenced scores for reference and information literacy skills,a point-biserial correlation was calculated within each grade level as shownin Table 7.

The analysis examined the relationships between schedule and achieve-ment for n ¼ 23 participants. The correlation revealed that schedule andachievement were not significantly related.

What effect did scheduling have on collaboration and integration?According to previous studies, flexible scheduling allows time for collabora-tion (Van Deusen & Tallman, 1991; Zweizig & Hopkins, 1999; Hamilton-Pennell, Lance, Rodney, & Hainer, 2000). Integrating classroom content withinformation literacy and research skills are accomplished through collabora-tive partnerships between teachers and media specialists (GA DOE, 2008).Factors that support collaboration are shared goals, flexible scheduling,administrative support, and resources (Bailey, 2005; Beaird, 1999; Doll, 2005;Harada & Yoshina, 2004; Montiel-Overall, 2005). Communicating, working,joining, and modeling with others are representative of the collaborativeprocess (AASL & AECT, 1998). According to previous studies, studentsscored better on standardized tests when the classroom teacher and the mediaspecialist worked together to create meaningful learning.

To facilitate collaborative planning between teachers and media specia-lists, a cooperative planning form is utilized (Hughes-Hassell & Wheelock,2001; Nebraska Educational Media Association, 2000). Filling out theseforms requires teachers and media specialists to identify content area,performance standards, information literacy standards, instructional strate-gies, resources, evaluation, and delineation of responsibilities. The coopera-tive planning form utilized for this study was redesigned and consolidated tolimit the amount of information required of teachers. Teachers did not havesearch about to locate the information literacy standard that corresponded tothe English/Language Arts Standards as these were grouped together.

Table 7. Correlations within Grade Levels for Achievement.

Grade Research Research and Writing Process

1st �0.387

2nd �0.070

3rd 0.319

4th 0.080

5th �0.328

SUSAN WARNER232

Teachers had the opportunity to request instruction in literacy informationand research for 15 consecutive weeks. Theoretically, the total number ofrequests for instruction could have totaled 345. Teachers requestinginstruction more than seven times would have been scored as high with anassigned variable of 1; teachers requesting instruction less than seven timeswould have scored as low with an assigned variable of 0. The number ofrequests was considered low as the media specialist received a total of ninerequests using all grade level data. Only 2% class visits accounted fortotal instructional time. The percentage of teachers requesting instruction was22%. There was not enough data to support a correlation as shown in Table 8.

Question 3 reflected on number of class visits according to schedule. Whatwas the effect of scheduling on class visitation for teachers using a fixed orflexible schedule? Visitation focuses on the circulation of books by classes.Wilson (1997) found an increase in circulation of materials when schedulingwas flexible. Latrobe (1998) cited a 1925 library standard for studentshaving a time for checkout. Weekly checkout develops (a) responsibility asstudents learn to return books on a regular basis, and (b) the habit ofreading for pleasure or interest (Wilson, 1997; Baker, 2003). Teachers ona fixed schedule were allowed to bring their classes once a week; teacherson a flexible schedule were allowed to bring their classes when needed.Table 9 shows the average number of visitations for checkout betweenteachers utilizing a fixed or flexible schedule.

Table 8. Percentage of Instruction.

Instructional Requests Number of Teachers Percent

0 18 78.3

1 2 8.7

2 2 8.7

3 1 4.3

Total 23 100.0

Table 9. Average Visitation by Classes According to Schedule.

Schedule N M Standard Deviation

Fixed 12 8.25 4.070

Flexible 11 1.45 2.067

Information Literacy and Flexible Scheduling for Elementary Media Centers 233

Teachers on a fixed schedule visited the media center for checkout on amore regular basis than those utilizing a flexible schedule.

To determine a relationship between scheduling patterns and classvisitations, a point-biserial correlation was utilized to answer the thirdresearch question as shown in Table 10.

The analysis examined the relationship between schedule and checkoutfor n ¼ 23 participants. The data indicate that teachers who visited thelibrary on a fixed schedule generated more checkouts.

Summary, Interpretation of Findings, Recommendations, and Conclusions

The purpose of this experimental posttest-only control group case study wasto begin an examination of the relationship between flexible scheduling forclass visitation to the elementary media centers and academic achievementin information literacy and reference skills while controlling for collabora-tion and integration. A district school system in Georgia follows the guide-lines of the AASL and AECT (1998) and the Georgia State Department ofEducation (2005–2008-a, 2005–2008-b) for scheduling in K through 12media centers. Current policy within the school system requires mediacenters to operate on a flexible schedule (GA DOE, 2005–2008-a, 2005–2008-b). Previous studies have correlated increases in instructional planning,curriculum integration, reading, and writing scores to flexible schedulingthrough collaboration and teaching in strong media programs (Beaird, 1999;Bishop, 1992; Lance, Rodney, & Hamilton-Pennell, 2005; Rodney, Lance, &Hamilton-Pennell, 2003). The need for further investigation was identified instudies presented by Eisenberg (2004), Lonsdale (2003), and Hurley (2002)that examined the core elements of strong media programs. Core elementsinclude scheduling, achievement, collaboration, and visitation.

Data collected addressed three research questions. The first questionexamined relationships between scheduling patterns, fixed or flexible, oncriterion-referenced standardized test scores for reference and information

Table 10. Correlations for Schedule and Class Visitation.

Grade 1 2 3 4 5

Checkout �0.979(�) �0.414 �0.550 �0.862 �0.972(�)

�po .05 (2-tailed) indicates a strong correlation between checkout and teachers on a fixed

schedule.

SUSAN WARNER234

skills. Student achievement in Georgia is measured using the CRCT toidentify strengths and weaknesses in learning related to the GPS (GA DOE,2005–2008-a, 2005–2008-b). The CRCT mean scores were collected fromthe domains of research and research/writing process in the content area ofEnglish and Language Arts for first through fifth grades. The analysisexamined the relationship between schedule and achievement for n ¼ 23teachers. The results showed no significant relationship between schedulingand achievement (Table 7). Comparison of mean scores for researchaccording to schedule and curriculum revealed slightly higher scores forstudents in grades one and two utilizing the media center on a fixed schedule(Table 5). Students in third, fourth, and fifth grades, when placed accordingto different schedule assignments and like curriculums, were demonstratedthe opposite results in comparisons of means for research and writingprocess. Students enrolled in a regular classroom and utilizing the mediacenter on a fixed schedule had higher scores than those utilizing the mediacenter on a flexible schedule (Table 6). The opposite scenario is seen forstudents enrolled in an advanced learning classroom (Table 6). Studentsutilizing the media center on a flexible schedule had higher scores than theircounterparts. Although there was no correlational evidence in favor offlexible scheduling and achievement, there were differences in comparisonof mean scores for students enrolled in regular classrooms and utilizing themedia center on a fixed schedule.

The second question examined the relationship that scheduling had oncollaboration and integration; the data revealed no measurable relationship.Both groups were required to collaborate with the media specialist forintegration of classroom curriculum and literacy skills and research.The purpose of the collaborative planning form was to facilitate integrationof classroom curriculum with information literacy and research skills.Although the collaborative planning form was (a) redesigned to minimizetime constraints between the media specialist and teacher, (b) made moreaccessible through the school network with additional copies in the mediacenter, and (c) included types of resources that correlated with GPSPerformance Level Descriptors, it did not increase the number of requestsfor instruction. The total number of teachers requesting instruction was five,which represented only 22% of the total number of participating classes(Table 8).

The total number of requests for instruction through collaboration fellinto the low category as there were only a total of nine requests. Sixtypercent of the teachers requesting assistance were utilizing a fixed schedulewhile the other 40% utilized a flexible schedule. Teachers on a fixed schedule

Information Literacy and Flexible Scheduling for Elementary Media Centers 235

collaborated with the media specialist for instruction more frequently thanthose on a flexible schedule. Teachers on a fixed schedule requested 20%more instruction (Table 9).

The third question addressed scheduling patterns and class visitations.Analysis showed a significant relationship between scheduling and classvisitations (Table 10). Teachers on a fixed schedule utilized the media centermore often than teachers utilizing the media center on a flexible schedule(Table 9). Closer examination revealed that teachers utilizing a regularcurriculum were 1.5 times more likely to utilize the media center. There wascorrelational evidence that scheduling had an effect on class visitation, butnot in the expected way. Teachers assigned to the media center on a fixedschedule utilized the media center on a more regular basis. Table 9 showsthat teachers utilizing the media center on a fixed schedule were eight timesas likely to bring their students to the facility. Checkout accounted for 35%of the time spent in the media center by classes.

Interpretation of FindingsThe first question, what was the relationship between scheduling patterns,fixed or flexible, on criterion-referenced standardized test scores for referenceand information skills, the data can be interpreted as insignificant. Bothgrouping types had access to the media center and shared the same mediaspecialist; both groups had equal opportunities to request integrated instruc-tion in information literacy and research skills. Yet the posttest scores showedno significant relationship between classes that utilized the media center at thetime of need, a tenet of flexible scheduling, or on a predetermined time table,a tenet of fixed scheduling (Table 5). Further analysis found that students ona fixed schedule in a regular classroom did have slightly higher mean scores(Tables 5 and 6). Additionally, teachers who requested instruction more thanonce had higher mean scores than their counterparts. The rationalexplanation is that achievement is a product of teaching and learning andmeasured by student acquisition of knowledge through testing. Achievementis not a product of scheduling as acquisition of knowledge cannot bemeasured by time. Gains in achievement that directly focus on informationliteracy and research cannot be seen if teachers are not recognizing theimportance of these skills as vital to improved academic achievement.

In addressing the second question, what effect did scheduling have oncollaboration and integration, the data revealed no relationship. Bothgroups were required to collaborate with the media specialist for theintegration of classroom curriculum and information literacy and researchskills. Many media specialists use a collaborative planning form to facilitate

SUSAN WARNER236

the integration of information literacy and research skills into the class-room curriculum. These forms establish the initial needs of the studentsthrough the identification of curricular information, needed resources, andperformance standards. Additionally, the form connects the skills associatedwith information literacy and research. Neither the teacher nor the mediaspecialist has to spend time locating the separate standards. Making theform accessible to all teachers on the school network or keeping additionalcopies in the media center did not increase the number of teacher requests.

Three of the teachers who utilized a fixed schedule requested instructionmore than once, and had slightly higher scores in the portion of the testrelating to research and research/writing process. There are three possibleexplanations. First, the fixed schedule allowed the teacher to maintain afocus for this time in the media center without interruption during theirdesignated planning time. Second, teachers utilizing a fixed schedule cameinto contact with the media specialist more frequently than teachers utilizinga flexible schedule. Third, these teachers recognized the importance ofexposing students to information literacy and research skills.

There is correlational evidence that scheduling has an effect on classvisitation as addressed in the third research question. Teachers assigned tothe media center on a fixed schedule utilized it on a more regular basis.Teachers placed on a fixed schedule were eight times more likely to utilizethe media center as shown in Table 9. Checkout accounted for 35% of thetime spent in the media center by classes.

One of the objectives of flexible scheduling is to increase visitations byclass(es) as envisioned in the constructivist underpinnings of strong mediaprograms (AASL & AECT, 1998). Yet the findings in this study did notsupport the guidelines of the AASL and AECT. Teachers in elementaryschools have set daily times for math, language arts, science, health, socialstudies, physical education, music, art, and technology. As a teacher sitsto plan lessons for the following week, he or she may have difficultyremembering to schedule time to bring classes to the media center.Additionally, other duties and responsibilities assigned to teachers will takeprecedence when teachers do not have the time set aside for media centervisitation. Teachers utilizing a fixed schedule for media center visitationcould set this time into their weekly lesson plans without having to readjusttheir daily schedule.

RecommendationsConstructivist theory indicates that flexible scheduling can be expected toincrease time for learning, opportunities for teachers and media specialists to

Information Literacy and Flexible Scheduling for Elementary Media Centers 237

share resources and exchange information, and for classes, small groups, andindividuals to visit the media center (Vygotsky, 1978; Bandura, 1977; Bruner,1996; Lave & Wenger, 1991; Gauvain, 2001). Flexible scheduling falls underthe area of responsibility for access and delivery (AASL & AECT, 1998) andallows for (a) teachers and students access to instructional resources at thetime of need and (b) research and literacy instruction through collaborationand integration of research and information literacy skills into the classroomcurriculum. Within the standards, the areas of teaching and learning andaccess and delivery are linked and considered interdependent.

Increasing student achievement is the product of teaching and learningand can be enhanced if teachers and media specialists have time tocollaborate. If flexible scheduling is believed to meet the needs of thestudents and teachers in all media programs, then it must be supported byadministrators. Teachers must accept the responsibility for requestingtime in the media center to bring classes and collaborating with the mediaspecialist. Symbiotic relationships must be formed between the mediaspecialist and teachers (Doll, 2005; Montiel-Overall, 2005).

Media specialists have to take the initiative to move past the level ofcoordination where interaction is minimal. The media specialist can offersuggestions for instruction, which can become an invitation for learning.The time needed to collaborate could come while students are lookingfor books which would enable the teacher and media specialist to sit anddiscuss instructional lessons. Offering instruction that integrates informa-tion literacy skills and research with specific resources is an additionalalternative. The goal is to make teachers aware of what can be accomplishedwhen the media specialist is seen as an instructional partner and teacher.

ConclusionsElementary media centers operate on one of three scheduling patterns:(a) fixed, (b) flexible, or (c) mixed (Giorgis, 1994; Zweizig & Hopkins,1999). Access and delivery and teaching and learning are the principalresponsibilities of the media specialist (AASL & AECT, 1998). Accordingto the AASL and AECT, student learning should take precedence overany administrative obligations or schedule. The AASL and AECT supportflexible scheduling in media centers across all grade levels. Yet, schedulingin elementary school media centers has remained a controversial issue for79 years (Fargo, 1930; AASL & AECT, 1998; Everhart, 2003). This studyfailed to support the assumptions of the AASL and AECT and previousresearch in establishing a relationship between flexible scheduling andachievement, indicating in this case that fixed scheduling provided more

SUSAN WARNER238

contact between the media center and students and teachers (Table 9)(Baker, 2003; Wilson, 1997).

Access appears to have been a better guarantee for those studentswhose teachers may not remember to schedule time in the media center if noton a regular schedule. A fixed schedule allowed the teachers to select apredetermined, set time for class visitation each week. A set time periodallowed the teacher to plan lessons accordingly, and these teachers do nothave to adjust lessons if the time that is needed is not available. The problemsassociated with flexible scheduling continue to be administrative and teachersupport, time, understanding, and knowledge (Hutchinson, 1986; Kroeker,1989). One solution to overcome these obstacles is initiating a return to thepractices set forth in the earlier standards for elementary media centers.

According to Fargo (1930), a mixed schedule offers open blocks of timeduring the instructional day for individuals, small groups, or classes(Everhart, 2003). It allows for younger students to visit the media centeron a regular basis with planned, sequential instructional activities. It alsoallows older students to visit the media center on an as-needed basis. Mixedschedules allow for timetables that offer other options and practicesavailable to staff and students. A mixed schedule can be adapted toincorporate both a fixed and a flexible schedule by relaxing the boundariesbetween the two definitions of scheduling.

Clearly, scheduling is not the only fact in developing collaborationbetween the teacher and media specialist (Montiel-Overall, 2005, p. 1).Collaboration is a ‘‘process’’ based on the development of a reciprocalrelationship between two or more individuals through language, activity,and practice (AASL & AECT, 1998). Collaborative processes exist atdifferent levels beginning with coordination and extending with integratedinstruction and curriculum (Asper, 2002; Montiel-Overall, 2005). To achievethe highest level of collaboration, other needs of the media program mustbe addressed to include the development of effective policies within thecenter and the school, a pattern of supportive administrative decisions, theprovision of clerical help, making time available for teachers and mediaspecialists to work together, and appropriate scheduling (Beaird, 1999; Doll,2005; Montiel-Overall, 2005).

The possibility exists that teachers may collaborate more if schedules weremixed and media specialists accepted the responsibility to lead teacherstoward the partnership. The educational goal of collaboration is to enhancestudent achievement (Montiel-Overall, 2005; Zweizig & Hopkins, 1999).

While scheduling did not appear to have any effect on achievement asmeasured by the acquisition of information and literacy skills on

Information Literacy and Flexible Scheduling for Elementary Media Centers 239

standardized tests in this study, it is linked in the literature to the levelsof collaboration and teaching and learning (Eisenberg, 2004; Farmer,2003; Lonsdale, 2003). Chen’s (1993) recommendation was to address thebasic academic skills of information literacy in two ways. The first is to usecommunication. Communication between teachers, students, and mediaspecialists is vital to identify instructional needs and resources, and meetingthe educational state performance standards. Media specialists will have totake the responsibility to open communication. Second, elementary mediaprograms may need to move back and begin teaching planned, sequentiallessons on information literacy.

Although this case study cannot be generalized to a larger populationbecause of the small sample size, it does provide insight into the coreelements of an elementary media program. The AASL and AECT (1998)identified three categories for student learning – information literacy,independent learning, and social responsibility. Information literacyaddresses the goal of accessing, evaluating, and using information at anelementary level. Scheduling should meet the needs of the constituentsthrough examination of class visitations and purpose of the visit.

REFERENCES

Abdoler-Shroyer, K. (1999). A study of the scheduling of classes in the library media centers of

Missouri combined K-12 schools serving their student population with one library media

center. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, Central Missouri State University. http://

citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/showciting?cid=6526011

American Association of School Librarians and Association for Educational Communications

and Technology. (1998). Information power: Building partnerships for learning. Chicago:

American Library Association.

Asper, V. (2002). Ladders of collaboration. Library Talk, 15(2), 10–11. Retrieved from EBSCO

Host Database (AN 6251904).

Bailey, L. (2005). Variables of information literacy in academically successful elementary

schools in Texas. Retrieved from Proquest Database (UMI 3168568).

Baker, J. (2003). Integrating curriculum in school library media programs through flexible

scheduling. PNLA Quarterly, 67(3), 8–11. Available at http://www.pnla.org/quarterly/

Spring2003/Spring03PNLA.pdf

Bandura, A. (1977). Social learning theory. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice Hall.

Beaird, M. (1999). The effect of increased collaboration among the library media specialist and

school personnel on perceptions of the roles and responsibilities of the library media

specialist. Retrieved from Proquest Database (UMI No. 9987938).

Bishop, K. (1992). The roles of the school library media specialist in an elementary school using

a literature-based reading program: An ethnographic case study. Retrieved from

Proquest Database (UMI 9303342).

SUSAN WARNER240

Bruner, J. (1996). The culture of education. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.

Chen, S. (1993). Current research: A study of high school students’ online catalog searching

behavior. School Library Media Quarterly, 22(1), 33–39. Available at http://www.

ala.org/ala/aasl/aaslpubsandjournals/slmr/editorschoice/infopower/selectchenhtml.cfn

Doll, C. A. (2005). Collaboration and the school library media specialist. Lanham, MD:

Scarecrow Press, Inc.

Eisenberg, M. B. (2004). It’s all about learning: Ensuring that students are effective users of

information on standardized tests. Library Media Connection, 3, 22–30. Available at

http://www.galeschools.com/pdf/Eisenberg.pdf

Everhart, N. (2003). Controversial issues in school librarianship. Worthington, OH: Linworth

Publishing Co.

Fargo, L. (1930). The program for elementary school library service. Chicago, IL: American

Library Association.

Farmer, L. J. (2003). Student success and library media programs: A systems approach to research

and best practice. Westport, CT: Libraries Unlimited.

Gauvain, M. (2001). The social context of cognitive development. New York: The Guilford Press.

Georgia Department of Education (GA DOE). (2005–2008-a). Library media services.

Available at http://public.doe.k12.ga.us/sia_as_library.aspx

Georgia Department of Education (GA DOE). (2005–2008-b). Criterion-referenced compe-

tency test (CRCT). Available at http://www.doe.k12.ga.us/ci_testing.aspx

Giorgis, C. A. (1994). Librarian as teacher: Exploring elementary teachers’ perceptions of the

role of the school librarian and the implementation of flexible scheduling and

collaborative planning. Unpublished doctoral dissertation. University of Arizona,

Tucson, AZ.

Haar, V. (2005). Public school libraries: Their history, curriculum, and impact on student

achievement. Unpublished doctoral dissertation. Retrieved from www.lib.drake.

edu:8080/dspace/bitstream/2032/284/2/vandeharr.doc

Hamilton-Pennell, C., Lance, K. C., Rodney, M. J., & Hainer, J. (2000). Dick and Jane go to

the head of the class. School Library Journal, 46(4), 44–47. Available at http://www.

schoollibraryjournal.com/index.asp

Harada, V., & Yoshina, J. (2004). Inquiry learning through librarian-teacher partnerships.

Worthington, OH: Linworth Publishing, Inc.

Holton, B. (2004). The status of public and private school library media centers in the

United States: 1999–2000 (Available at http://nces.ed.gov/pubs2004/2004313.pdf).

Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education

Statistics.

Hughes-Hassell, S., & Wheelock, A. (Eds). (2001). The information-powered school. Chicago, IL:

American Library Association.

Hurley, C. (2002). Fixed vs. flexible scheduling in school library media centers: A continuing

debate. Library Media Connection. Retrieved from EBSCO Host Research Database

[Electronic Version].

Hutchinson, B. (1986). School library scheduling: Problems & solutions. School Library

Journal, 33(4), 31–33.

Kroeker, L. H. (1989). Behind schedule: A survey of West Texas schools. School Library

Journal, 35(16), 24–28.

Lambert, L., Walker, D., Zimmerman, D., Cooper, J., Lambert, M., Gardner, M., et al. (2002).

The constructivist leader (2nd ed.). New York: Teachers College Press.

Information Literacy and Flexible Scheduling for Elementary Media Centers 241

Lance, K. C., Rodney, M. J., & Russell, B. (2007). How students, teachers, and principals

benefit from strong school libraries: The Indiana study. Available at http://www.

ifonline.org/AIME/INfinalreportNextSteps.pdf

Lance, K. C., Rodney, M. J., & Hamilton-Pennell, C. (2005). Powerful libraries make powerful

learners: The Illinois study (Available at http://wwwislma.org/pdf/ILStudy2.pdf).

Canton, IL: School Library Media Association.

Lankford, M. (1994). Flexible access: Foundations for student achievement. School Library

Journal, 40(8), 21–23.

Latrobe, K. H. (1998). The emerging school library media center: Historical issues and

perspectives. Englewood, CO: Libraries Unlimited, Inc.

Lave, J., & Wenger, E. (1991). Situated learning: Legitimate peripheral participation. Cambridge,

MA: Cambridge University Press.

Lonsdale, M. (2003). Impact of school libraries on student achievement: A review of the

research. Camberwell Victoria: Australian Council for Educational Research. Available

at http://www.acer.edu.au/research/author.html

Marshall, G. (Ed.). (1998). Dictionary of sociology. New York: Oxford University Press.

McCracken, A. (2001). School library media specialists’ perceptions of practice and importance

of roles described in Information Power. School Library Media Research, 4(2001),

doi: 202802.

Montiel-Overall, P. (2005). Toward a theory of collaboration for teachers and librarians. School

Library Media Research, 8(5), doi: 103493.

Nebraska Educational Media Association. (2000). Guide for developing and evaluating school

library media programs. Englewood, CO: Libraries Unlimited, Inc.

Rodney, M., Lance, K., & Hamilton-Pennell, C. (2003). The impact of Michigan school

librarians on academic achievement: Kids who have libraries succeed (Available at http://

www.mame.gen.mi.us/pdfs/MichiganStudy.pdf). Lansing, MI: Library of Michigan.

U.S. National Commission on Libraries and Information Science. (2008). School libraries work:

A research paper (Available at http://librarypublishing.scholastic.com/content/stores/

LibraryStore/pages/images/SLW3_2008.pdf). Washington, DC: NCLIS.

Van Deusen, J. D., & Tallman, J. I. (1991). The impact of scheduling on curriculum

consultation and information skills instruction: Part one, the 1993–94 AASL/Highsmith

Research Award Study. School Library Media Quarterly, 23(1), doi: 202771. Avail-

able at http://www.ala.org/ala/aasl/aaslpubsandjournals/slmr/editorschoice/infopower/

selectvandeusen21.cfm

Vygotsky, L. (1978). Mind in society: The development of higher psychological processes.

Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.

Williams, D., Wavell, C., & Coles, L. (2001). Impact of school library services on achievement

and learning (Available at http://www.strongest-links.org.uk/support_research.htm).

London: Department for Education & Skills and Resource.

Wilson, L. R. (1997). An investigation of the differences between a flexibly scheduled media

center and a traditionally scheduled elementary school media center and the effects on

administration, faculty, and students. Retrieved from ProQuest Digital Dissertations.

(ATT 9804467).

Zweizig, D., & Hopkins, D. M. (1999). Findings from the evaluation of the National Library

Program. Executive summary. An initiative of the DeWitt-Wallace Reader’s Digest Fund.

Madison, WI: Wisconsin University. Retrieved from ERIC Database. (ED438846).

SUSAN WARNER242